Fact: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the county and the tribe would send a signal to federal decision makers that the county favors the casino.
Surprising fact: The county is quietly negotiating a new MOU with the tribe.
These negotiations are taking place at a time when the casino developers have never been further from attaining their goal. Why is the county negotiating? CARS Chairman Ed Lynch asked the Clark County commissioners that question this morning -- and they offered no answers.
Read on for more information, and please let your commissioners know that their constituents' wishes should supersede those of a Seattle developer -- David Barnett, a.k.a. Salishan -- and a Connecticut Indian tribe. The county should stop negotiating now.
Call the Commissioners' Office at (360) 397-2232, or e-mail:
Betty Sue Morris: Bettysue.Morris@clark.wa.gov
Steve Stuart: Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
Marc Boldt: Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
__________
If things seem a little too quiet on the Cowlitz casino front, you're right -- and it's no accident. Here's the scoop:
Clark County and the casino developers are very quietly, almost secretly, negotiating a brand-new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to replace the 2004 MOU, which was invalidated last year due to insufficient public participation.[1]
These negotiations are occurring despite the fact that earlier this year the county declared its opposition to the casino.[2]
They also are taking place while the county continues to fight to save its old MOU in the state court of appeals[3] and while a replacement MOU is in force at the National Indian Gaming Commission.[4] (The latter, a unilateral tribal ordinance, might not hold up in court.)
Salishan-Mohegan needs an MOU
Clearly, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate would like a brand-new MOU. Over the past dozen months the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has sent the strongest possible signals to all concerned that without a signed MOU between the tribe and the local government involved, it would be extremely difficult under federal law for the agency to take land into trust for gambling.
In fact, George Skibine, head of Indian gaming operations at the BIA, has said it "could potentially be a deal breaker for them."[5] Bottom line: The casino developers need a new MOU.
Does Clark County need an MOU?
For the county's part, the question is more difficult to answer.
The county has stated repeatedly its rationale that it needs an MOU to protect its coffers if the casino comes into being and is not required to pay property and other taxes.
But if, in addition to the numerous other problems this application has (lack of community and county support; a weak, deficient Environmental Impact Study; pending lawsuits; and incompatible zoning on the proposed site), the county were to refuse to sign onto an MOU, it is nearly certain that the proposed casino application would be thrown out -- and the problems the county claims to be trying to mitigate would disappear.
The issue is this: Does the comfort of having a signed MOU and a promise of payments in lieu of taxes, although it will not be needed for many years -- if ever, justify the county sending a strong signal to the federal government that it's now ready to accept a casino and welcome large-scale gambling in Clark County? We think it's too high a price to pay.
The EIS and the MOU
Even more mysterious is why the county would negotiate a far-reaching MOU before the casino developers have agreed to address the county's concerns over the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.) The county's comments on the EIS were perhaps the most scathing of all the cooperating agencies. Many of their concerns had been given no serious consideration in the final document and the county was dissatisfied with the EIS's treatment of the proposed casino's impact on I-5, the I-5 bridge, local roads, schools, social service agencies, housing and more.[6][7]
County citizens say 'No way'
When the county conducted three hearings in April seeking public input on the MOU, the commissioners were met by an outpouring of opposition to both the proposed casino and a new MOU.[8] More than 100 county citizens spoke out, 73 percent of whom told the commissioners that they didn't want a casino or a new MOU. The commissioners are ignoring the comments they solicited.
Have they forgotten that ignoring the public is what got the county in trouble before? Remember, that is why the 2004 MOU was invalidated last year.
Why these quiet negotiations?
The county says that ultimately there will be at least one more public hearing on a new MOU -- but this is really after the fact, on a document negotiated in secret.
Other major decisions are negotiated in the public eye. When alternative plans were being considered for a new Columbia River Crossing, with the county participating, were the sessions conducted in secret? Of course not. Are the impacts and implications of those two projects so vastly different that one should be discussed in secret and the other in the open?
Why any negotiations?
The commissioners, with the exception of Marc Boldt who has long opposed a casino, seem hell-bent on smoothing the way for a mega-casino and resort in Clark County. That much becomes clear when we apply the old test, "Watch what they do, not what they say."
With a weak and deficient EIS awaiting Department of Interior final review, lawsuits pending and the proposed casino site improperly zoned for the services it would need, Salishan-Mohegan has perhaps never been further from having its casino application approved. Why then, are commissioners Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris so committed to keeping this failed proposal alive?
_________
[1] CARS, "Court rules casino MOU invalid," (13 December 2007),
[2] Andersen, Michael, "County opposes casino, ponders deal," The Columbian, 9 April 2008.
[3] Mize, Jeffrey, "County keeps options open on casino," The Columbian, 12 January 2008.
[4] Mize, Jeffrey, "Federal court tosses Vancouver's casino suit," The Columbian, 25 September 2008.
[5] Andersen, Michael, "Commissioners: Can we kill casino?" The Columbian, 6 May 2008.
[6] CARS, "Clark County pans Cowlitz casino study," (25 July 2008),
[7] Clark County, "Clark County Comments: Cowlitz Casino-Resort Final EIS," (16 July 2008),
[8] Mize, Jeffrey, "County finishes casino hearings," The Columbian, 16 April 2008.
